Two
articles: For and
Against use of
irrigation canals for trail recreation
in western Colorado

Editor's
note: The use of canal roads for recreation
has been a growing issue of dispute
in the Grand Valley. The Daily Sentinel
asked Bob Cron,
cochairman of the Grand Junction Urban
Trails Committee, and Dick
Proctor, manager of the Grand
Valley Water Users' Association, to
offer their thoughts on the issue
(June 1997).

The Grand Junction Urban Trails
Committee is a non-political, citizen
volunteer organization. The mandate
of the group is to coordinate, promote
and facilitate the construction and/or
designation of bicycle and pedestrian
trails, routes and lanes throughout
the urban part of the valley. Citizens
of our community need these bike and
pedestrian facilities to provide access
to parks, schools, and city center
and other points of interest, as well
as for recreational values.

One
issue with high interest for the residents
of our county is the use of irrigation
canal banks for recreation trails.
The Urban Trails Committee recently
responded to that interest by spending
almost a full year studying the feasibility
of trails on canal banks. We concluded
that recreation trails on canal banks
are feasible. Our study and findings
are documented in Feasibility Study
- Recreation Use of a Portion of the
Grand Valley Government Highline canal,
which was released in September of
1996.

Presently, political support
exists for trails on canal banks where
the cooperation of the underlying
landowners, canal companies and affected
government agencies can be negotiated.

A
bill was introduced in the Colorado
Legislature this year to attempt to
give private landowners and canal
companies liability protection if
they agree to open portions of their
property or canal facilities to public
recreation. Although last year's bill
failed, this year the Colorado Municipal
League worked with Colorado Farm Bureau
and other agricultural organizations
to produce a bill more acceptable
to all sides. House Bill 1132, sponsored
by Rep. Jeannie Reeser, D-Thornton,
and Sen. Don Ament, R-Iliff, was signed
by Gov. Roy Romer in March.

Completing
the negotiations and processes to
make recreation a reality on canal
roads will, however, take a lot of
dedication, understanding, persuasion
and persistence. Preliminary discussions
have resulted in strong opposition
from canal companies and concern from
some canal-bank landowners.

The
factual situation is that most of
our large irrigation canals cross
private lands under the terms of an
easement. The underlying private landowner
is the key to determining what uses
other than the irrigation canal will
occur on these lands. The private
landowner may provide an easement
for a recreation trail or sell the
underlying land as he or she sees
fit. If the landowner is willing to
provide a recreation-trail easement
or sell the land, we are confident
that the concerns can be acceptably
worked out.

Similar issues and
concerns have been resolved in other
communities such as Denver and Phoenix,
as well as in our own valley, as evidenced
by the Audubon Trail along the north
bank of the Redlands Water and Power
Canal from the Brach's Shopping Center
to Connected Lakes State Park.

The
most significant issues found in the
feasibility study and some of the
potential resolutions are:

*
The potential for increased liability
to the landowners and affected canal
company which can be resolved by assumption
of liability for the recreation trail
by the sponsoring public entity.

*
Interference with canal operation
and maintenance can be resolved acceptably
with trail closures during heavy-equipment
maintenance and reconstruction activity
and by recreation users avoiding interfering
with the passage of ditch-tender vehicles.

*
Vandalism should not increase because
of the additional eyes and ears of
trail users and increased law enforcement,
as well as some fencing of sensitive
irrigation structures. Increased costs
for maintenance and fencing of sensitive
facilities, etc. should be paid by
the trail-sponsoring agency.

*
Safety need not be compromised. We
have heard from a number of citizens
who feel that use of canal banks would
be safer than walking or biking on
city streets. Small children must
be supervised by parents on canal
banks, just as elsewhere. And the
extra presence of citizens should
prevent drownings rather than increase
the occurence.

* Loss of privacy
for landowner homes close to the canal
can be a negative factor, but that
is part of the landowner decision
on whether or not to provide a trail
easement - fencing and vegetative
screening can help where there are
concerns. We have heard from some
canal-bank landowners who want to
walk or bike along the canal and who
enjoy seeing neighbors passing their
residences.

* Security in adjacent
homes has not been a problem elsewhere
but is something for which trail users
should be alert and which we will
want to monitor.

* Property
values in other locations have not
changed significantly, although homes
not directly adjacent to the canal
banks have tended to increase modestly.

*
Concerns about motorized vehicle use
should disappear as motorized use
is eliminated from the canal banks
other than that needed by the canal
companies for trail maintenance and
that needed for law enforcement.

So
far, in our contacts with Grand Valley
Water Users' Association, the canal
company in the area of the feasibility
study, the association board has maintained
that any recreation use on canal banks
would unacceptably interfere with
their operations and maintenance.
We do not agree and hope that, where
landowners are willing to provide
a recreation-trail easement across
their lands, the water company will
recognize the need to sit down with
the sponsoring agency to work out
an acceptable accommodation for both
uses.

The Urban Trails Committee
remains willing to work with landowners,
canal companies and citizens of the
urbanized area within and adjacent
to Grand Junction to facilitate and
resolve concerns about recreation-trail
use on irrigation canal banks.

Cron
wrote this in cooperation with Pat
Kennedy, the cochair of the Urban
Trails Committee.

Opinion
by irrigation companies against the
use of canals for recreation trails
in western Colorado.

By
Richard Protor Grand Valley Water
Users' Association

Spring
is here. Water is again flowing in
the canals of the Grand Valley to
provide irrigation for thousands of
acres of farm fields and suburban
lawns. Once again a few dozen people
persist in ignoring "No Trespassing"
signs and enter unauthorized upon
the canal banks without consent of
the affected landowners or the irrigation
companies.

The irrigation companies
wish to protect and preserve the intended
use of the irrigation facilities by
authorized persons and to protect
and preserve the health and safety
of the general public. Most people
who trespass on canals are oblivious
to the hazards that exist within the
canal corridor. The canals are dangerous
because of fast-flowing cold water,
steep canal banks, non-visible underwater
hazards, siphons, spillways, bridges
and conduits. Just being on a canal
roadway is hazardous. the roadway
is the workplace needed by the canal
companies to make deliveries to individual
water-user headgates and laterals
that carry water to lands father away
from the canals.

These canal
roadways are also used to make daily
inspections of the canal for possible
leaks, cave-ins and other happenings
that can cause loss of water services,
failure of the canal and property
damages to neighboring landowners.
Unobstructed access to the entire
lengths of both sides of the canals
is absolutely necessary to assure
safe operation of the canals and preserve
the safety of the general public.

In
recent years, different factions have
pushed to open portions of the canal
banks in the Grand Valley for public
recreation purposes, particularly
for walking, jogging and bicycling.
But, private property rights of the
underlying landowner have been championed
by the canal companies. There are
specific parcels of land underlying
the canals or adjacent to the canals
that are owned directly in fee title
by the canal company or canal system.
However, a large portion of the canals
exist by easements over land owned
by someone else.

Easements can
be by prescription, defined by continued
assertion and use of said easement
for the period of the statute of limitations,
which is 18 years in Colorado. Easements
can be granted or reserved in writing
or set by specific enacted legislation.
The easements are perpetual and only
for construction, operation and maintenance
of the canal. Canal companies cannot
give third-party access to the canal
easements without the underlying landowner's
permission. On the other hand, landowners
cannot permit anything that will interfere
with the canal easements. Unauthorized
entry onto canal banks can be a two-pronged
trespass issue. Trespass against the
underlying landowner and/or trespass
against the canal company's easement.

Liability
issues connected to opening canal
banks for recreational use are an
enormous concern for the underlying
landowners and canal companies. House
Bill 1132, that was passed into law
this year, contained provisions relating
to the limitation on liability of
private landowners who voluntarily
open their land for public recreational
purposes. one provision of HB 1132
is that if the property on which irrigation
facilities are constructed (currently
considered an attractive nuisance)
is used for public recreation, the
property and water on it shall not
constitute an attractive nuisance.

In our opinion, HB 1132 does
not contain provisions specific enough
to limit liability of the canal companies
that may not own the land, but claim
an interest in the land by virtue
of canal easements. It is not logical
to say that an irrigation canal and
the appurtenant structures are classified
as an attractive nuisance until such
time as the public is invited on the
adjacent property for recreational
purposes. Limitation of liability
must extend to the entire canal corridor
to be effective and must not just
be limited to an 8- or 10-foot-wide
path on a particular side of a canal.

Law-enforcement
protection for canal companies, landowners
and proposed recreational users against
theft, vandalism and personal injury
has not been addressed to the satisfaction
of the area canal companies.

Public
use on canal banks will assuredly
cause increased operational and maintenance
costs of affected irrigation facilities.
Any such cost increase must be borne
by others than the water users of
the canal companies. Use of canal
banks for recreational purposes will
result in unreasonable interference
with the operation and maintenance
of the canal and irrigation system.
Factual conflicts can exist in determining
if such recreational activities unreasonably
interfere with canal operations. These
issues must be resolved before any
planning of trails on canal banks
can be furthered.

Canal recreation
supporters point to Denver's Highline
Canal and canals in the Phoenix/Scottsdale,
Ariz., area that allow trails on their
canal banks as examples. The Highline
Canal in denver is owned by the Denver
Water Authority which, being a governmental
body, enjoys immunity or limited liability
without the provisions of HB 1132.
The Phoenix/Scottsdale area canals
are concrete lined. The Grand Valley
canals are mostly unlined earthen
canals that flow following the highest
contour possible to allow gravity-flow
irrigation to fields lower in elevation
than the canal. The soils that make
up canal banks are expansive, requiring
different maintenance practices than
concrete-lined canals.

Area
canal companies have cooperatively
promoted no-trespassing educational
measures for several years. These
efforts have been successful in that
no drownings occurred in the canals
in 1996. We pray to keep that record
for a long time.

The feasibility
study of recreation use on irrigation
canals was done on a 2-mile section
of the Government Highline Canal in
cooperation with the city of Grand
Junction, Mesa County and the Bureau
of Reclamation and prepared by the
Grand Junction Urban Trails Committee.
The study report released in September
1996 did not resolve issues brought
forth by the canal companies. The
study showed that the underlying landowners
within the study area did not favor
recreational use of the canal bank.

The
Grand Valley Water Users' Association
stockholders voted at their 1996 annual
meeting to go on record as being opposed
to allowing recreational trails on
the Government Highline Canal banks.

Please don't risk the safety
of yourself or others by trespassing
on irrigation facilities.